Glen Eyrie Notes, Session III quotes of scientists regarding homosexuality being genetic

• Francis S. Collins, one of the world’s leading genetic scientists, head of the human genome project, in his book, The Language of God, “Evidence from twin studies does in fact support the conclusion that heritable factors play a role in male homosexuality….indicating that sexual orientation is genetically influenced but not hardwired by DNA, and that whatever genes are involved represent predispositions, not predeterminations.“[1] (italics added)
• Paul R. McHugh, M.D. – the University Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. “(1) there is no scientific consensus on what homosexuality is, and the number of people who fit in the class…varies widely, depending on which definition of homosexuality is used and (2) there is no scientific consensus that homosexuality is exclusively or primarily genetic in origin.”[2]
• Homosexual activist and Researcher Dean Hamer (author of the Gay Gene) “We knew that genes were only part of the answer. We assumed the environment also played a role in sexual orientation, as it does in most, if not all behaviors…”[3]
• Researcher N. Mitchel, “Homosexuality is not purely genetic…environmental factors play a role. There is not a single master gene that makes people gay…I don’t think we will ever predict who will be gay” (Mitchell, 1995).[4]
• Homosexual activist and researcher, Simon LeVay “It’s important to stress what I didn’t find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn’t show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain.”[5]
• Mark Breedlove, “a researcher at the University of California at Berkeley, demonstrated that sexual behavior can actually change brain structure. Referring to his research, Breedlove states: ‘These findings give us proof for what we theoretically know to be the case-that sexual experience can alter the structure of the brain, just as genes can alter it. [I]t is possible that differences in sexual behavior cause (rather than are caused) by differences in the brain”’ (Breedlove, 1997, p. 801).[6]

[1] The Language of God, Francis Collins, p 260, http://www.narth.org/docs/nothardwired.html accessed 2/28/15.
[2] http://www.narth.com/#!cv/cdy2 accessed 2/5/15.
[3] Hamer and Copeland, 1994, p. 82, http://www.narth.org/docs/innate.htmlm, accessed 2-5-15.
[4] http://www.narth.org/docs/innate.htmlm http://www.scribd.com/doc/100219506/Is-There-a-Gay-Gene accessed 2-5-15.
[5] http://www.narth.org/docs/innate.htmlm http://www.scribd.com/doc/100219506/Is-There-a-Gay-Gene accessed 2-5-15.
[6] http://www.narth.org/docs/innate.html accessed 2/28/15.

Thank you for your willing and unselfish sacrifice for my undeserved freedom of religion in America!

It seems to me that most Americans, including many Baptists, are either unaware or have forgotten the extraordinary role that Baptists played in securing religious liberty in America. Many Americans who are aware seek to minimize Christianity’s role in general and Baptist’s role in particular. Then there are those whose lack of acknowledgement and appreciation sometimes manifests itself in admonishments to pastors, particularly Baptist pastors, against speaking out or being involved in politics. Some of these chastisements come from Baptist pews and pulpits. Let me mention one historical example of Baptist influence. Continue reading →

The loss of spiritual freedom for supposed physical freedom is reason enough to become informed, and to work and pray for the collapse of ObamaCare. Following are some of the ways that ObamaCare will further erode religious freedom in the U.S. Additionally, check out the “ObamaCare and its Mandates Fact sheet” at Alliance Defending Freedom.  This four page fact sheet summarizes the destructive impact of ObamaCare upon religious faith. An excellent resource.

1. The abortion mandate limits business owner’s First Amendment rights by requiring them to directly fund the death of innocent lives created in the image of God (Gen 9:6).
2. It advances the notion of only protecting religious freedom when all participants are adherents to the faith, thereby limiting the ministry of religious groups to the public (Matt 5:13ff).
3. Government control of healthcare requires working people to pay for those who could work, but choose not to, thereby encouraging laziness (2 Thess 3:10).
4. Government control of health care further erodes the need for personal responsibility and decision-making. This undermines the understood need for repentance and accepting the gospel, since both require a clear sense of personal responsibility (Rom 3:23, 10: 9-10).
5. It furthers the redefining of religious freedom under the First Amendment to merely meaning freedom of worship.
6. It expands the cost of running the spendthrift federal government, thereby reducing the amount of discretionary income for Christians to give to spiritual causes, to utilize private schools, or to live on one income.
7. It continues the transference of benevolence from the private sector to the federal government, thereby limiting the benevolent role and significance of religious groups (Matt 5:13ff).

Michael Tinney, a member of the 2013/2014 Roundtable in Ethics, explains the answer to the following question. Is the overthrow of an existing king, ruler, or government, if war or violence is necessary, ever biblically justifiable? Continue reading →

“Wall of separation” is the exact phrase used by Thomas Jefferson in his letter to the Danbury Baptists, whereas “separation church and state” is the popular phraseology. My use of these phrases in this article should not be construed in any way as an endorsement of either agreeing with them or using them. I actually argue for Christians to disabuse ourselves from using them as a gloss of the First Amendment. For when it is so used, it is at best a tawdry and misleading replacement of the amendment’s beautiful words, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” I use it only because the article necessitates that I do.

In the 1947 Everson v. Board of Education case (1947 – 330 U.S.1), the Supreme Court applied the establishment[1] clause to the states. It also imbued this guarantee with a firm Separationist reading. Justice Hugo Black’s words for the Everson majority proved a prophetic distillation of the establishment cases for the next four decades: “The ‘establishment of religion’ clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another….In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect “a wall of separation between church and state.”[2] (italics added) Continue reading →

If someone rejects the normalcy of homosexuality, he is summarily labeled as a homophobe. If a crime is committed against a homosexual, it is quickly attributed to homophobia. Continue reading →